Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-571 - Conley v. Schmitz et al (INMATE 2)


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-571 - Conley v. Schmitz et al (INMATE 2)
February 27, 2018
PDF | More
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE that: 1. Plaintiff's challenges to the validity of the 2017 drug possession conviction entered against him by the Circuit Court for Houston County be DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because these claims are not properly before the court at this time; 2. Plaintiff's respondeat superior claim against Defendants Schmitz, West, Parrish, and Mock be DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) 2)(B)(ii); 3. Plaintiff's state-law claims be DISMISSED without prejudice; 4. This case be DISMISSED prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Objections to R&R due by 3/13/2018. Signed by Honorable Judge Gray M. Borden on 2/27/2018. (kh, )
April 9, 2018
PDF | More
ORDERED that:(1). The Magistrate Judges Recommendation (Doc. # 11) is ADOPTED; (2). Plaintiff's challenges to the validity of his 2017 drug possession conviction entered against him by the Circuit Court for Houston County are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims are not properly before the court at this time; (3). Plaintiff's respondeat superior claim against Defendants Mike Schmitz, Mike West, Steve Parrish, and Ray Mock are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 4. Plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1367(c)(3); 5. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/9/2018. (kh, )